Jump to content

aluz

Members
  • Posts

    788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by aluz

  1. Yes, Peter II, the son of Portugal king said "Independence or death!!!" in 1822, nobody cared much, his father said "oh, fine"... And Brazil got its independence and Peter became the only "Emperor" of the Americas.

    After losing Cisplatina province (now the country of Uruguay), Peter went back to Portugal and became Peter IV, king of Portugal...

    Yeah, crazy history.

    This is true!

    At that battle, Portugal lost 3-0 too and had more injured players than today.

    And red card for all its citizens...

    Lol

    Goalllllll!!!

    Goal average increasing!!!

    It was actually Peter I of Brazil who declared the indepedence. He did it with the support of the local elite, who did not enjoy much the request from the Portuguese liberals to return Brazil to a colonial status.

    The declaration of independence was seen by some historians as a ploy to later restablish a unified Portuguese empire. Since Peter was the rightful heir of the Portuguese throne, he could claim it once his father died. According to this historians, his father engineered this ploy, which would be an evidence that John VI was not the idiotic figure normally portrayed in history books.

    The problem was that Peter turned his back on the local elite and his brother Michael, insulflated by his mother Carlota Joaquina, promoted a coup d´etat in Portugal and was crowned king.

    When Peter lost the support of the local elite he ended up resigning from his Brazilian crown and fleeing to Portugal to fight his brother and became King Peter IV of Portugal.

    After his death his son Peter, became Emperor Peter II of Brazil and his daughter Maria became the Queen of Portugal. From then on, the Bragança dynasty had split lines of succession in Brazil and Portugal, ruining the original plan to unify the former Portuguese empire.

    • Like 1
  2. Not a olympian. Plus, football has too much attention in Brazil already and I'm sure other athletes would protest if a football player stole their thunder. Let Ronaldo light the cauldron of the World Cup...Oh Wait!

    Who told you that Ronaldo was not an olympian?

    He played in the national team in 1996 Games in Atlanta and left with a bronze medal. Not only he is an olympic athlete, but also an olympic medalist.

  3. As Emilio said... "iremos por mas olimpiadas!!" do you think Guadalajara will be ready for the olympics?

    No way. The Mexicans organization of Guadalajara 2011 was a flop. They had several issues, including selling tickets for the press area at the Closing Cerimony.

    The only reason why Raña said it was the best PanAm ever was because he is Mexican and was behinf the Games the whole time.

  4. I think the big issue, and you alluded to it, is that these cities are mostly in it for themselves. Getting the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996 didn't do much for other cities. Likewise, how many people outside of New York cared whether they won or lost (Chicago was practically rooting for New York to lose to take their own shot at 2016). And then the other problem, and I brought this up earlier, is that sometimes these cities seem to be in it for 1 shot and 1 shot alone. NYC 2012 was never going to survive through to another cycle of bidding, and that would have been the case even without the West Side Stadium.

    Yes, exactly! And the best example of that issue is that the leader of the bid is usually somoeone from outside the Olympic movement, whereas in Rio it was Nuzman and in London Seb Coe.

    As Baron said, the USOC has been behind the last bids. What I mean is that they should be in front of them.

    I agree that there needs to be a more long-term plan in place, but I don't know how you accomplish that. This isn't like the 1980s when Anchorage was positioned as the Winter candidate for the United States and was essentially given the green light to be the USOC's candidate until they won. Then when they lost interest, Salt Lake got a similar deal that they'd get 1998 and 2002 at the very least.

    It is a matter of setting the rules in that way. Mainly the USOC has to commit ti such a strategy and stay with it. The rest will end up aligning with it naturally.

    After all, as you've said yourself, there were people in Chicago rooting for NYC to lose. This probably has kept NYC away from some potential investors, which had already been hooked to Chicago.

    I don't know what the solution is for the USOC because how do you choose between a city like New York which is your best shot for that particular bid or another city with less of a chance but who may be in it for the long haul. Part of the issue with New York was that the bid was based around a new stadium for the New York Jets (and later using the Mets' plans for a stadium), so when they lost 2012, the Jets and Mets both moved ahead with their own plans. So it's a contradiction of asking a city to use an Olympics to spur development and construction versus a city not wanting to wait around for an Olympics to come. And of course the flip side of all that is a city like Los Angeles with the large majority of Olympic-related facilities already in place, but then where's the legacy in that the IOC is always looking for.

    In short.. aluz, I agree with your assessment of what SHOULD happen in order to benefit the USOC's hopes at landing an Olympics, but the way the USOC and these bid cities approach the Olympics, I don't know that it can happen. It's different when you have a country like Italy or Japan or Turkey where there's really only 1 city legitimately trying for the Olympics and an NOC that's going to be there to fund them. The USOC is never going to be able to take that lead role with a bid unless they find a way to fund it (I know using NBC has been mentioned.. not sure that's going to work so well because we saw how the IOC reacted the last time NBC and the USOC tried to partner on something) and we know that's going to be a hard sell.

    It's not entirelly true that the last countries which nailed the SOGs had a clear prominent city. China could have easily chosen Shanghai or Guagzhou, Brazil could have chosen São Paulo and has a few other options once you consider that Durban is viable, Australia has hosted with Melbourne and Sydney and both remain viable candidates. Italy can choose between Rome and Milan as Spain has hosted with Barcelona and is attempting now with Madrid. Soth Africa can also choose from, at least, 3 options. Either way, those countries chose a preferred city to bid and the NOC committed to it.

    The reality is that chosing a city in advance makes it easier to build a well thought bid, to adapt the bid after successive losses and to design a proposal that is aligned to the city long-term plans, with the legacy that the IOC likes to see. London could have bid again with a similar proposal and even could have started the development of its Olympic Park even if they didn't win the SOGs. That's basically what Istanbul did.

    I will come back later and write a thorough explanation about why I think that committing to a city will arrange the issues you see in an easier way than you think. Everything, from the technical plan to the financial aspects would adapt to the new reality producing better results in future bidding cycles.

  5. I disagree, sometimes this works, but more often than not it doesn't. I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:

    - London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.

    - Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane

    - Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid

    - Atlanta last bid in 1920

    - Seoul had no precedent

    On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.

    I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.

    Well, you have really misrepresented me in this one. You have taken the sentence when I mention a possible solution for the US to encourage cities to bid repetitively and presents it as a statement about the US chances to win. Really bad interpretation.

    As my first sentence mentioned, the best (not the only) way to win is to have repetitive bids. The problem is how to finance it.

    Then you make bad comparisons which indeed strengthen rather than weaken my arguments. Except for London, the remaining bidders were running agaist lame ducks or other non repeting bidders.

    - Barcelona faced Paris, which was not bidding time after time.

    - Sydney ran against Beijing (first-timer) and 3 European cities which were weaker in terms of continental rotation.

    - Atlanta main competition was Athens, who was not a repetitive bidder as well.

    - Seoul ran against Nagoya, which was also a first-timer.

    London was the only first-timer which has beaten by a very narrow margin a repetitive bidder. Besides, recent campaigns have shown that repetitive bids help the city get momentum to evetually win.

    But returning to the main point in my post, what you don't seem to grasp is that the way the American bids are structured makes it difficult for building up strength from the lost bids. The NY 2012 experience didn't seem to have added anything to the Chicago bid. Running against weaker competitors, it actually did worse. That happens mainly because the city seems to be the one really pushing the bid, instead of the NOC.

    Mainly, what needs to change in the way the Americans run olympic campaigns is to understand that the USOC must have a leading role in the process, raher than just choose a city and support the bid during the campaign. When I say the USOC should lead the campaign it means mostly going after money to finance the enterprise and building relationship with the IOC to influence the votes. We are living a time when a successful bid campaign is a long term effort, not a single-cycle attempt.

    Besides, there are also other aspects of the technical part of the process that can benefit a prospective olympic city which plans to bid time after time.

  6. I agree with the ones that think that repetitve bids is the best way for securing an SOG for the US. However, the way bids are currently funded in the US makes it almost impossible to happen.

    IMO, the only option is for the USOC to run a domestic process and choose a city that would bid until it wins. By doing that, it would be easier to get money from different sponsors as an nation-wide effort, instead of a city effort, like today. The way it works now, makes second attempts for the SOGs highly unlikely.

  7. lol we are having fun about it. many many jokes on the web and more coming, like the athletes of ethiopia disappears at the marathon and found in greece kidnapped and taken as a refugee, they dont pay the bills of gas so that the cauldrons gas is cut, the gypsys taken the athletes village and fight back not to get out ...etc :)

    about hope... people do have hope. but need to be informed and as i guess they will start and adv. campaign both int and for turkey to inform about the olympics and candidature. many people here start to complain about probable traffic jam and cities infrastructural booming before the games and they all know its the last hope for saving Istanbul. they afraid of cannot handle the games but also saying it shall be the best ever if we really work on it... we turks a bit strange :D

    the only nation that always underestimate their selves :D

    emre,

    The same reaction was seen in Brazil during the 2016 campaign. Most of the people did not believe that Rio would win until it actually happened.

    Several supposedly well informed journalists had to swallow their words after saying that the bid committee was wasting US$ 50 million.

    You are nor alone, but like what the Rio state governor said during the bid final presentation, the most important legacy is psychological. After the games the people of Rio will feel that they can achieve this. The feeling of pride.

  8. Bezzi, and how is the roof thing in Maracana. News about the suit in justice?

    Not only did the judge denied the request, but she also stated that it was an invalid request, since it has been mostly demolished and it was posing a threat to people and to the structure. In the future, the case is not decided, but the worst that can happen is a request to rebuild the roof as it were. BTW, considering the judges' reasoning, even such a decision is not likely.

  9. It will be a Mediterranean battle vs. a "tsunami-pity-me" bid by Tokyo.

    Istanbul will split the Asian votes w/ Tokyo in the opening; while Madrid and Rome will split the Euro votes.

    So the Americas,' African and Oceania votes will decide 2020. Really a good time for a US 2022 candidate city to horsetrade votes!!

    Turkey is an European country as far as IOC politics are concerned. Besides Istanbul is for sure in Europe.

    Istanbul will have an impact both on European and Asian (islamic) votes. Not to mention their good rapport with the islamic nations of Africa.

  10. Well, I will update with the developments so far from my previous list.

    Transports:

    -> BRT Transcarioca (called T5 in the bid book) -> Targeted for 4Q13

    - 1st section (Barra - Penha)

    - Construction on-going. Main sites are in Campinho, Barra da Tijuca and Madureira where underground roads and highways are being built.

    -> 2nd section (Penha - Rio Intl Airport)

    - Demolistions have started

    -> BRT Transoeste (covers part of the former Barra-Zona Sul BRT) -> Targeted for 3Q12

    - Construction under way.

    - Main bridge over Av. Salvador Allende has been completed.

    - Bridge over Canal do Rio Morto underway

    - Grota Funda tunnel has been fully excavated.

    - Duplication of Av. das Américas in Guaratiba and Recreio is advanced.

    - Some of the stations are under construction.

    -> BRT Transolimpica (called C-Link in the bid book) -> Targeted for 2015

    - Project finalized.

    - Tender published.

    -> Subway Line 4 (Barra- Gávea, covers part of the former Barra- Zona Sul BRT) -> Targeted for 2015

    - Under construction.

    - More than 1km of tunnels has been excavated from Barra to São Conrado (entrance of the tunnel is visible in Barra).

    - Jardim Oceânico station in Barra is under construction.

    - São Conrado station has been started together with the excavation of the tunnel to Gávea should start soon.

    -> Subway Line 1 (Ipanema- Gávea, covers part of the former Barra- Zona Sul BRT) -> Targeted for 2015

    - Construction underway.

    - Service tunnel is being excavated to create a 2nd platform in General Osório station in Ipanema.

    - Excavations for the line will start in 2013, after a TBM is installed on site.

    - The other stations will be built in parallel.

    -> Duplication of Avenida Niemeyer

    - Not started.

    -> Renovation of the surroundings of the JH Stadium.

    - Demolitions on-going.

    Venues:

    -> Maracanã refurbishment -> Targeted for 4Q2012

    - Demolition of both rings finalized.

    - Demolition of the ceiling is advanced.

    - Foundations of the lower ring and the external entrances have been installed.

    -> OTC and Olympic park construction (includes Aquatic Center, Field Hokey Center, Tennis Center, the OTC 4 halls, the MPC and the IBC)

    - International competition to design the facilities was launched. REsult should be published this month.

    - The new auto-racing track project is being finalized. (A requirement for the start of the OTC construction is that the current racing track is replaced by a new one).

    -> Riocentro Hall 6 construction

    - No news

    -> Athletes park construction

    - Opened this weekend.

    -> X Park construction

    - No news

    -> JH Stadium upgrade -> Targeted for 3Q2015

    - Planned to start on 2013 after the delivery of Maracanã.

    Accommodation:

    -> Olympic Village

    - Construction started.

    - The land is being moved. Foundations should be start to be laid out next year.

    -> Media Village (Barra)

    - No news

    -> Media Village (Port)

    - Conceptual project approved.

    -> Hotels

    - Several hotel groups have initiated projects in the city, including Accor and Hilton.

    - 2 major hotels are being restored (Gloria and Hotel Nacional)

    - Former Méridien hotel has been reopened.

    - Several hotel groups are in the process of acquiring land to build new hotels, including Hyatt and Four Seasons.

    - Expectation now is to reach 34.000 hotel rooms by 2016, instead of the 28.000 proposed in the bid book.

    -> Port

    - No news if the renovations of the docks was inside the tender for the Port District PPP.

    Urbanization:

    -> PPP was assigned to carry the renovation of the Port District, including the creation of new Light Rail lines, expansion of the road network and the demolition of a highway to be replaced by an underground tunnel. => Works are under way.

    - Urban project for the areas of the Port which will be used for the Olympics has been chosen through a competition.

    • Like 1
  11. What do you mean "already done"? Will these sit empty for 5 years until the 2016 refs arrive? Whether they are sold or rented, surely, they cannot ask residents to move out for 3/4 weeks during the 2016 Games & Paralympics? :blink:

    Sicne it is residences for the military they can actually kick them out for a short period. BTW, this is not going to be THE referee's village, but one of them. There is at least another one in the Port.

  12. You have said it before, but once again, you're wrong, as you always are. :rolleyes:

    My recent posts have NOTHING to do with the 2018 campaign. They have EVERYTHING to do with FIFA and a few of their members' anti-English agenda, and with the attitude of the man running your World Cup bid which is likely, if it continues, to turn a lot of people off your World Cup. It already turned me off the draw (which I normally would have watched), and as I see from reading SSC, coverage and perceptions of the World Cup in your own country is also being harmed by him.

    You might want to write to your FA or FIFA or one of your newspapers rather than trying to change my mind by (strangely) calling me a fool me aluz. Just a thought. :rolleyes:

    At least get some facts on your side before posting here, thank you. :rolleyes: It was the Times that ran big with the FIFA expose, not the NOTW. And the BBC have done just as much to expose FIFA as any News International publication and their reputation remains very high worldwide (unless you're a bore like Texiera and believe they are a "state organisation" who have an interest in getting the 2018 World Cup wrested away from Russia - perhaps the funniest bit of paranoia that has come from the idiot's mouth in the last week). :lol:

    The British media has corrupt elements and those elements have a lot to answer for but you rather conventiently forget (or more likely didn't know going by your grasp of the facts thus far) that it was the Guardian that exposed the hacking scandal. The British media is both the best and worst in the world, as I've often maintained. Nothing in the last month changes my view; only that the worst are worse than I thought and the best better. And when it comes to exposing FIFA I'm rather proud of their work, Murdoch run or otherwise.

    Perhaps, rather than repeatedly telling me not to post things against FIFA or against your World Cup, you could instead tell me why the head of your FA and the world cup he is organising deserves any of my interest or time given the outright xenophibia he has displayed recently? Replace the word British with the word "black" or "Jewish" in any of his remarks and you'd be the first to condemn him. I wonder why in this instance you fail to do so?

    RobH,

    You must see that you are wrong. You should take a good look at yourself and realize how pathetic this crusade is. Ricardo Teixeira was elected to CBF by an unanimous vote, running unopposed. Even SPFC, its biggest opponent, voted for him instead of abstaining as usual. Blatter was elected with more than 90% of the votes of the FIFA Congress, also unopposed. The vote was so high that even with Bin Hamman on the play I think he would win after all.

    Second, the FA, and maybe the Australian one, is the only national federation not accepting the results of the 2018 vote and conducting this ridiculous crusade to try to remove the FIFA heads. If they think they are on the right side of things, they should instead build consensus with the other federations to do so. They could start with an UEFA rebellion for instance. Well, it turns out it won't work because Platini is a big Blatter ally and most of the European countries, including big leagues Spain, Italy and German are probably embarrassed by the current behaviour of the FA. So, there is no hope in changing anything. You might replace the people, but you will have the same kind of management.

    You are so buried in the ridiculous assumptions about the pristine intentions of England and the FA that you can't see that there are no good guys in this story. Of course there is corruption. The case that the Times is trying to pull out now has appeared here in Brasil several times, because it is pretty old. The problem is that there is no evidence, since the settlement terms are confidential. Moreover, the reason for one's settling on a case is not only to admit guilt, but to prevent for having to face a costly, long and time consuming law suit.

    But, anyway, it all started when NOTW probably tipped by the FA itself taped some FIFA ExCom members allegedly selling votes for 2018/22. It happens that these two guys ended up not voting, giving no space to discredit the voting system. But that's beside the point, since the British media is making generalizations about FIFA and its members, Teixeira felt that he could generalize his assumptions about the British media.

    • Like 1
  13. RobH,

    As I have said in GB before. You are making a fool out of yourself. The FA ran a lousy campaign and lost. When they realised that, they went down shooting at FIFA. And I don't think FIFA is managed by a bunch of priests. They are corrupt, but so is the world of football.

    Have you never asked yourself why the hell didn't the FA denounced the so called bribery attempts and dropped th bid when people started to make those propositions to them? Really, the only possible way to come out on the top in such a situation is to withdraw and denounce. But the FA played it through.

    Besides, the News of the World scandall, which was the newspaper that exposed 2 ExCom members, has actually put a big part of the British media in a bad situation. You cannot really claim at this point that the British media is not corrupt.

    • Like 1
  14. This is a never ending discussion. The fact is that football tickets are going to become much more expensive or Brazilian teams are going to remain raising talents to European clubs. It is a ridiculous point made by people who can't concatenate their thoughts. They wan't the best players to stay, the clubs to be strong, the stadia to be comfortable and safe and the tickets to be cheap. I wonder who is going to pay the high cost of doing everything they wish with such low prices.

    Besides, unlike what the article says, it is not the price of the ticket that gets supporters away, it is the opposite. Going to a football stadium in Brazil means going to a dirty, unsafe, uncomfortable venue with the worst infrastructure you can think of. Just stay away from the rest rooms, arrive 2h before the match and run away at the first sight of a fight and it will be fine. It is ridiculous. The reason why people don't go more often is obvious: it is uncomfortable and unsafe. The second reason is that most teams lack attractive players, so the quality of the game is not what a Brazilian would expect.

    There are a lot of people who would pay much more than the current ticket prices if they had higher security and comfort standards. That would mean more money for the clubs, which would mean better players and which would mean better football. This will make the machine move making prices higher and having less poor people at the stadium. But that's exactly what happened in Europe from the mid 80's on. There is no escape.

    BTW, I don't see the NYT commenting on the professional leagues in the US, which are far from being an every person show. They should do the math. Maracanã will fit around 80.000 people, while the population of Rio metro area is around 12 million. So, it doesn't fit a lot of people. The ones who pay the most are going to be able to watch, the others are going to watch through the TV. That is sport as a business.

    • Like 1
  15. Well, I guess I am old enough to see all the changes they made. First time I was there in '85. I used to go there for a couple of games per year until '97, including the famous '92 Brazilian Championship Final, when the upper bleacher fence collapsed and everyone watched the game standing (the overcrowd was one of the reasons why the fence collapsed) and sweating a lot before the game started. It was VERY hot in the beginning of the afternoon at summer games until 6PM, mostly because of the sun position. After that, the wind used to help to cool down the temperature.

    Late night games, on the other hand, were very cool, almost "chilly" (speaking as a Rio native terms).

    So, you are probably as old as me. Well, it was not that hot if you chose to sit on the same side of the stands of the VIP seats (cadeira especial), which were under the shadow. On the other side, which recently has been occupied by the white seats, has always been very hot, before the sun went down.

    Anyway, I don't know if you have noticed that since they have closed the upper ring with the boxes (camarotes), the stands have become pretty hot even during evening matches.

    But as you said, when I was a child, my mother would force me to take a long sleeve shirt to Maracanã. It was really chilly in the evening because of the wind.

  16. ^^^

    I read part of it and it is the worst kind of journalism that I have seen. The person who wrote that has never done any construction work. Not even a small renovation of his or her house or apartment.

    The method to estimate when the works are going to be completed was done by dividing the current money spent on the project, divide it by the budget and compare it with the percentage of the schedule that has passed. Basically, if a project costs 100 million and 10 million has been spend so far, it estimates that the other 90 million are going to be spent in the same pace. Therefore, if the project had started 2 months ago, it would take 18 months to complete the job.

    This ridiculous, since the execution of the budget varies in intensity along time. In general, it really increases in the end of the process where all the details needed to finish the projects, like plumbing, wires, etc consume a lot of money in material and manpower. So far, most of the stadia is being demolished or building new foundations. Since this step of the process typically consumes less money in materials and employs less people, it is normal that the budget execution is slower at this point.

  17. Being a not-very-regular user of Maracana, I can imagine that the new roof will make the stadium cooler than before, because it will open space for ventilation over the top, which is something that didn´t have before.

    Try being there in the middle of Summer, with the sun on your face and the greenhouse effect was very, very unconfortable. To be fair, when it comes at night there is a lot of wind around the stadium, because the surroundings are very open, but during a hot summer day this is not exacty a pleasant place to watch a soccer game (obviously that was never an obstacle for me to not go to Maracana, but those are the facts).

    Obviously that won´t happen during Games-time and WC, because both will be in the middle of winter here, but it will help for rest of the year.

    I don't know how old you are, but Maracanã was not always this hot. Before the boxes were built, you could enter the upper ring grand stands from the tunnels or from the top. The circulation area on the top of the upper ring allowed for the air to circulate and the stadium was not very hot for spectators which were not under the shadow of the roof.

    With the new roof, the effect of the sun should be less important, since more seats will be covered. Even the trans-lucid cover should be fine, since it is not transparent, thus filtering part of the sun light.

  18. Well nothing is that surprising. I mean no disrespect to our members from these regions but backhanders are a way of life outside of Japan, Korea, North America and Europe. And it seems like only Korea understands that it is the way of doing business outside of the western world.

    Don't be silly! It is the way it goes everywhere. Not to mention the several corruption cases that have arisen in recent times in these countries, there are always Dick Cheneys, Berlusconis and others all around.

    By the way, European and North American companies have famous cases of corruption in developed nations as well. They probably don't start that practice when they expand abroad.

    Anyway, as I have said before, there is corruption in FIFA but bribing has not decided the election for the last WC hosts. Besides, I seriously doubt that any of these guys actually had such conversations with Lord Triesman, not because they are clean, but because they are smart. This corruption allegations have become a convenient way out for the heads of the English bid, for running an expensive and fruitless campaign. They could not deliver the POLITICAL assets that the FIFA ExCom members wanted, so they started to encourage the corruption stories.

    You must be too naive to think that the English bid team did not know in what they were getting in.

    Anyway, to close on your statement, in Democracies, corruption does not disappear as you might think, it only becomes more sophisticated and harder to spot. That's the problem with Triesman's accounts, they are below the level of sophistication required for the FIFA level of transparency, which is rather low, by the way, but is not like Kadafi's Lybia.

    BTW, Lord Triesman ought to have a lot of money on the bank, because he is going to pay a lot of reparations, since he can't prove what he says.

  19. Thanks for the updates. Maybe you guys can post pictures and info from time to time to let us know how things are progressing.

    I am not living in Rio, but I have been there for Carnival. I don't have pictures of the construction site, but I have passed by some of them during my stay.

    The Barra subway station construction and the tunnel excavation is totally visible. The construction of BRT Transoeste is also advanced. I could see personally the elevated passage being built close to the OV site, the tunnel to link Recreio to Guaratiba and the widening of Av. das Americas to open the space for the BRT dedicated lanes.

    I have also passed in front of Maracanã and it really looked like in ruins to me. The demolition is well under way and it looked sad to see that wonderful stadium in such a state. At least, I am positive about the results of this renovation.

    By the way, I have been to JH stadium for the semifinals of the Guanabara Cup (first leg of the Rio state championship). It desperately needs that new access from Linha Amarela high way. Currently the routes to arrive and leave the stadium by car are dreadfull.

×
×
  • Create New...